Francyn Rossi T.

Yangson

POS 100 Section L

September 30, 2014

Reaction Paper on Money Politics: Patronage, Clientelism,

and Electoral Dynamics in Southeast Asia
Dr. Paul Hutchcroft, in his talk Money Politics: Patronage, Clientelism, and Electoral
Dynamics in Southeast Asia, first emphasized its ubiquity in most governments and institutions,
though the use of the concept has largely been used imprecisely due to differences in its forms,
its subsequent components, and the places where it has been observed to occur. Dr. Hutchcroft,
along with his associates, studied the occurrence of money politics across four countries in
Southeast Asia, namely: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. On the surface,
these four countries could not be anymore different, united only by perhaps by closely tied
histories and their few common characteristics, including that of being middle-income
democracies in the region (although recent events in Thailand has threatened this). However,
money politics, in its different forms, is present in the electoral systems of these four countries.
The concept of money politics has always been rather vague, according to Dr. Hutchcroft,
and their study sought to clarify this and to determine what it means in these different contexts.
Patronage has influenced political outcomes in different ways in these countries: for example, in
Indonesia, patron-client networks in the post-Suharto years involve the aliran, social currents
based on socio-cultural identity, and major religious organizations with strong local bases that
have ties to the central government in Jakarta. In the Philippines, this manifests as clans and
bosses; in Thailand, as professional vote canvassers and brokers who get the money down from
the candidates to the community wherein they exert considerable social influence, and the votes
to the candidates, and; in Malaysia, as the nexus of relations between the ruling party, the United
Malay Associate, and the web of powerful companies. There have been few comparative
analyses between these countries in the literature regardless of their relative geographic
proximity, but recent studies have focused on what gave rise to clientelism and patronage, on
micro-politics, and the effectiveness of money politics in certain contexts.
Patronage and clientelism have often been seen as synonymous, but Dr. Hutchcroft has
clarified that these two terms are conceptually distinct: while patronage refers to the material
benefits or resources that are used to wield political support or to the advantage of the party,
generally (but not always) derived from public sources, clientelism refers to a more personalistic
relationship of power. This goes back to James Scotts classic work that describes patrons as
those of higher social status linked to clients of lower social status. Patron-client networks are
enduring face-to-face relationships that function under the premise of reciprocity. These two
concepts are not mutually exclusive, and one can exist in the absence of the other. Clientelistic
ties that are enduring and multi-purpose exist, of course, in the Philippines; brokerages,
relationships that are short-term and instrumental, in Thailand; relgious and ethnic associations
that are more binding, in Indonesia, and; strong political parties, in Malaysia.

In Malaysia, political flags can be seen all over the country during the election season.
These flags belong to the two parties that are competing for the votes of their Malay base,
appealing to their Malay and Islamic sensibilities to gain their votes. Personalities within the
parties are not very distinct, and instead emphasis is placed on each political party which
promises to safeguard the interests of the Malay-Islamic majority. Almost the complete opposite
situation can be observed in the Philippines, where, while political parties exist, they remain to
be weak, and instead personalities are emphasized. Dr. Hutchcroft demonstrated this by showing
the campaign posters of JV Ejercito and Bam Aquino, who each have photographs of their more
famous family members in politics in the background (Joseph Erap Estrada, and Ninoy, Cory,
and Benigno III Noynoy Aquino, respectively). The senatorial races are distinct in their own
way due to the differences in the way elections are conducted on that regard; local government
elections are also an interesting case. Local government politicians in the Philippines also bank
on their clientelist relationships with their electorate: politicians call their electorate their
friends, brothers and sisters, even defender, perhaps to appeal to an electorate that feel
they have little power over the political system, to gain their trust, and to assure them that,
through this personal relationship, accountability and responsiveness can be expected if they vote
for these leaders. Whether they deliver on their electoral promises is another story. He also
describes that in Indonesia, socio-political currents are slowly changing, and a shift from party to
personality politics similar to the Philippines can be observed. Thailand is a different story, with
the takeover of the military junta of the government, and whether or not the current ruling party
will follow up on their promise of conducting a 2015 elections remains to be seen.
Dr. Hutchcroft says that there are a lot of lessons that the Philippines can learn from the
experiences of other countries in terms of their conduct of elections and their political system as
a whole, and I agree with him. First, it is important that the Philippines moves towards a more
representative political body, perhaps by institutionalizing proportional representation (since the
way by which many politicians these days work around the current party-list system clearly
defeats the purpose of marginal representation) the way that other countries have done (not
necessarily Southeast Asian countries, i.e. in South Korea). The strong political parties in
Malaysia is something worth looking at, because Philippine political parties are weak and have
no clear directives should they be elected, and this has greatly impeded political accountability
and responsiveness since people mostly are at a loss to what exactly we can hold them to. The
Malay model where the parties also focus on the Malay-Islam roots of their people can, if
applied properly in the Philippine context, aid in nation-building in a nation long divided by
ethnic, religious, and ideological discord. Stronger political parties that put less emphasis on the
individual and more on the concrete, clear goals of a party can also aid in the lessening of
celebrity candidates who know nothing about politics and enter the political arena to gain
benefits, by simply banking on their popularity. Important changes to the way by which elections
are conducted in the country can introduce better representation, and induce social and political
mobility that will encourage greater political participation, and spur development.